ArticleHeliyon2024
The efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate compared with propofol for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under monitored anesthesia care: A single-center randomized controlled clinical trial.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Propofol Versus Remimazolam in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Pharmacological sedation strategies for therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Remimazolam and Propofol for Sedation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025Pooled it
- Incidence and predictors of postoperative delirium following remimazolam administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Remimazolam versus Dexmedetomidine on Hemodynamics in Older Patients Under Lower Extremity Orthopedic Surgery with Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Trial
- Dexmedetomidine nasal spray for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Safety Signals of Remimazolam Require Procedure-Specific Interpretation.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Comparison of the safety and efficacy of remimazolamFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Optimal Dosing Strategies for Remimazolam Across Diverse Patient Populations: A Clinical Narrative Review.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- Assessing the use of the Index of Consciousness (IoC) as a monitoring tool for the sedative effects of ciprofol during general anesthesia induction: a prospective observational study.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although remimazolam tosilate is an ultra-short-acting benzodiazepine that causes less respiratory and circulatory depression than propofol, studies evaluating its efficacy and safety during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are limited. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of remimazolam and propofol for ERCP performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Methods: This study is a randomized controlled clinical trial featuring a noninferiority design. A total of 102 eligible patients undergoing ERCP under MAC were randomly assigned to either the remimazolam tosilate group (R group) or the propofol group (P group) in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the R group were sedated with remimazolam tosilate, while those in the P group received propofol, both under MAC. The primary efficacy endpoint was the success rate of ERCP completion under MAC. Secondary outcomes included the time to loss of consciousness, sedative effects, and perioperative adverse events at various time points for patients in both groups. Results: Baseline characteristics of both groups were similar. The successful completion rate for ERCP under MAC was 100 % in the R group and 96.1 % in the P group, resulting in a difference of 3.92 % (95 % CI: -2%, 10 %). This difference met the pre-established criterion of being greater than -8%. The total number of norepinephrine infusions, as well as the incidence of intravenous injection pain, post-induction hypotension, post-induction bradycardia, intraoperative hypotension, respiratory depression, and hypoxemia, were significantly lower in the R group compared to the P group. Conversely, the total number of phloroglucinol uses, body movements, and instances of rapid gastrointestinal peristalsis were significantly higher in the R group than in the P group. Discussion: Remimazolam-based MAC for ERCP exhibited non-inferior efficacy compared to propofol-based MAC, while also resulting in fewer circulatory and respiratory adverse events during the procedures. Nevertheless, future studies with larger sample sizes are required to evaluate the utility of remimazolam in elderly patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.